| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2011 11:25:11 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...It seems to have held up remarkably well given the worst of all case scenarios. |
Agreed. Well, second-worst case, anyhow. First is "asteroid impact." |
Nah... Asteroid impact is the end of life as we know it, so what's a little radioactivity in that case? :-)
R. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 11:36:59 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
its a shame that we associate nuclear power with weapons and mutations and cancer, and freak accidents such as this continue to give it a bad name. |
Of course the average person is most likely to come into contact with radiation and nuclear anything when being treated for cancer. |
|
|
|
03/16/2011 11:46:55 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Too much loss of energy when the wind blows and none when the wind stops.
The one thing people truly need when dealing with power is consistency... and I doubt this is the answer. |
Turbines are placed where the winds ARE consistent- at the coast, on mountain tops, etc. While they don't generate power when the air is still, they also don't cost anything or generate toxic materials when idle. Turbines pay for themselves in a few years, and then they're essentially free.
There was a huge wind farm proposed for Long Island Sound, but Ted Kennedy blocked it because it would be visible from his Martha's Vineyard digs. Maybe it will be revisited now. I'd much rather have a bunch of turbines blocking a sunset than live downwind from the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Not that I'm against nuclear power, but turbines strike me as a wee bit safer than building that plant on fault lines practically within sight of NYC (and vulnerable to a large tsunami up the Hudson river). |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:18:47 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
No design of anything is completely safe. Engineering isn't about making things failure proof, it's about managing risk based on current knowledge. |
I understand that. I disagree with the risk/benefit analysis result reached by the proponents of nuclear energy, regarding current construction techniques and parameters and waste disposal/treatment options.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to have "safe" nuclear power, just that it (what I consider "safe") would come at a far higher cost than the safer alternatives, or that the taxpayers (and ratepayers) should be willing to bear. |
Oh, that's not really amazing then. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:23:47 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...It seems to have held up remarkably well given the worst of all case scenarios. |
Agreed. Well, second-worst case, anyhow. First is "asteroid impact." |
Nah... Asteroid impact is the end of life as we know it, so what's a little radioactivity in that case? :-)
R. |
Depends on the asteroid. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 03:37:47 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There was a huge wind farm proposed for Long Island Sound, but Ted Kennedy blocked it because it would be visible from his Martha's Vineyard digs. |
Are you conflating the one proposed for Nantucket Sound with the one proposed for Long Island Sound? I'm pretty sure you can't see Long Island Sound from Martha's Vineyard (it's like 75 miles as the crow flies) but MV is right ON Nantucket sound, and for sure Kennedy vehemently opposed the Nantucket Sound wind farm, which would have dominated the visible horizon as seen from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, on Cape Cod.
R. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 07:25:46 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Too much loss of energy when the wind blows and none when the wind stops.
The one thing people truly need when dealing with power is consistency... and I doubt this is the answer. |
Turbines are placed where the winds ARE consistent- at the coast, on mountain tops, etc. While they don't generate power when the air is still, they also don't cost anything or generate toxic materials when idle. Turbines pay for themselves in a few years, and then they're essentially free.
|
the footprint of a nuclear power plant is far smaller than a wind or solar farm an that smaller footprint produces a vast amount of energy compared to the others. land isn't cheap, especially by the coasts.
if i put a solar on my whole roof or a wind turbine in my yard, it wouldn't even power my house for the year. so a few acres of these here and there isn't even going to put a dent in the worlds demand for power. you need plants that produce consistently large amounts of electricity. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 08:19:24 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Are you conflating the one proposed for Nantucket Sound with the one proposed for Long Island Sound? I'm pretty sure you can't see Long Island Sound from Martha's Vineyard (it's like 75 miles as the crow flies) but MV is right ON Nantucket sound, and for sure Kennedy vehemently opposed the Nantucket Sound wind farm, which would have dominated the visible horizon as seen from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, on Cape Cod. |
Meh, someplace-off-the-coast-within-sight-of-a-Kennedy-compound. I didn't look it up. Turns out the wind farm WAS approved and will power 400,000 homes (about half a nuclear power plant). Land is cheap when it's not on land. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 08:46:05 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if i put a solar on my whole roof or a wind turbine in my yard, it wouldn't even power my house for the year. |
I don't think that's true any more -- many people who install residential solar systems can return power to the grid. The time to recoup the investment has steadily dropped -- it used to be 25-30 years, now I think it's more like 5-10.
Again, one of the major advantages of wind and solar systems is that they do not have to be installed in massive, capital-intensive operations. Ranchers are putting up a couple of turbines on pastureland they can still use for other purposes.
Midsize Solar Installations Grow At Light-speed |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 09:22:11 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...The time to recoup the investment has steadily dropped -- it used to be 25-30 years, now I think it's more like 5-10.
Again, one of the major advantages of wind and solar systems is that they do not have to be installed in massive, capital-intensive operations. Ranchers are putting up a couple of turbines on pastureland they can still use for other purposes.
Midsize Solar Installations Grow At Light-speed |
True, the advances in both solar and wind power design and the use of advanced materials has resulted in much better economics for small installations. You make a great point that for remote locations, it can be very attractive, and saves not only the power used from the grid, but also the cost of running power lines, which can be very substantial. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:15:43 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if i put a solar on my whole roof or a wind turbine in my yard, it wouldn't even power my house for the year. |
I don't think that's true any more -- many people who install residential solar systems can return power to the grid. The time to recoup the investment has steadily dropped -- it used to be 25-30 years, now I think it's more like 5-10.
Again, one of the major advantages of wind and solar systems is that they do not have to be installed in massive, capital-intensive operations. Ranchers are putting up a couple of turbines on pastureland they can still use for other purposes.
Midsize Solar Installations Grow At Light-speed |
the reason for the return on investment is the green credits that you earn and get to trade on an open market, those credits on a typical 4kv home system could yield about $1500 a year curenly. without those credits you aren't even coming close to breaking even anytime soon on your investment. also remember that while you do return power to the grid, you are mainly (at least i am) consuming power at a time when the sun isn't shining, at night, so while the meter will still spin backward, the net result isn't zero. it could be if you have a large property and can set up a large system, but not everyone has that type of space, usually only what a roof will allow and yor house has to face the right way.
so while after a few years solar can bring your total money spent on energy to zero or even make it profitable for you, your are still actually relying on others sources for your power. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:23:31 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
while after a few years solar can bring your total money spent on energy to zero or even make it profitable for you, your are still actually relying on others sources for your power. |
Isn't relying on other sources for part of the time at zero cost or a slight profit better than relying on other sources ALL of the time for a substantial fee? |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:30:56 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
while after a few years solar can bring your total money spent on energy to zero or even make it profitable for you, your are still actually relying on others sources for your power. |
Isn't relying on other sources for part of the time at zero cost or a slight profit better than relying on other sources ALL of the time for a substantial fee? |
YES! as i said i'm planning on getting solar on my roof in the future, every littl ebit helps. My comment is stemming from the assumption that these alternate clean energies can replace nuclear power as a viable alternative. They cant, well maybe for just homes they can get close, but in no way could they power an city, let alone an industrial one. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:44:52 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
My comment is stemming from the assumption that these alternate clean energies can replace nuclear power as a viable alternative. They cant, well maybe for just homes they can get close, but in no way could they power an city, let alone an industrial one. |
You're comparing personal solar panels and turbines to commercial power plants. It's apples and oranges. Commercial wind and solar farms already serve as primary power sources for entire towns. Germany generates about 26 gigawatts of power from wind turbines, and another 10 GW from solar. Sonnenschiff Germany produces four times more solar energy than it consumes. For reference, a nuclear reactor produces about 1GW. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 11:00:42 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
My comment is stemming from the assumption that these alternate clean energies can replace nuclear power as a viable alternative. They cant, well maybe for just homes they can get close, but in no way could they power an city, let alone an industrial one. |
You're comparing personal solar panels and turbines to commercial power plants. It's apples and oranges. Commercial wind and solar farms already serve as primary power sources for entire towns. Germany generates about 26 gigawatts of power from wind turbines, and another 10 GW from solar. Sonnenschiff Germany produces four times more solar energy than it consumes. For reference, a nuclear reactor produces about 1GW. |
i was using the house as an example, if i cant put a system on my roof to power my own house completely, how large or how many system does the system need to be to power thousands of houses and cities.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2011 11:16:21 AM · #91 |
| You can't put a nuclear system on your roof to power your house either. Commercial wind and solar facilities take up a fair amount of space, but so does nuclear... especially with the security buffers and waste disposal considerations. On the other hand, nobody is going to flee in panic over a damaged turbine or solar panel. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 11:21:20 AM · #92 |
| Mini Nuclear neighborhood power plants. I have no clue if these are still in consideration but thought it was an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 01:49:09 PM · #93 |
| Probably the real plus of solar is that you CAN shove it on a roof or a nook or a cranny or other unused space. We have a solar panel roof covering 8-9 parking spaces here at work. It probably will never be reasonable to have very many huge solar farms except in the middle of the desert where the sun shines 360 days a year and land is unusable for any other purpose. Even then the ecological footprint is probably large for the ecosystem it gets plunked down in. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:11:46 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i was using the house as an example, if i cant put a system on my roof to power my own house completely, how large or how many system does the system need to be to power thousands of houses and cities. |
Solar, or nuclear for that matter, is not an either or solution. It ought to be part of the mix even if it can't be the magic bullet.
That said, solar can be enough to power a house buy itself. I have a friend who lives off the grid in New Hampshire, with a back up generator that they use occasionally, but if you've ever been to New Hampshire in February you know if you can do it there, you can do it most anywhere. Here in northern California, I know of at least 3 families who's urban solar system makes them net sellers of electricity, and given some of the current research into small scale storage solutions with pressure and stream storage of power gathered through solar arrays to use at night, being off the grid will soon be an option for the average consumer.
It will be interesting to see if we begin adding DC power into the residential mix in parallel with AC power, which we only use because it is easier to push great distances through power lines. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:14:31 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
My comment is stemming from the assumption that these alternate clean energies can replace nuclear power as a viable alternative. They cant, well maybe for just homes they can get close, but in no way could they power an city, let alone an industrial one. |
You're comparing personal solar panels and turbines to commercial power plants. It's apples and oranges. Commercial wind and solar farms already serve as primary power sources for entire towns. Germany generates about 26 gigawatts of power from wind turbines, and another 10 GW from solar. Sonnenschiff Germany produces four times more solar energy than it consumes. For reference, a nuclear reactor produces about 1GW. |
Sonneschiff isn't a city. It's more like a neighborhood. 52 homes and a small community/commercial (there is NO industrial usage) area do not constitute a city. Additionally, the entire area was designed from the ground up to be energy efficient and thus use little power. This isn't really a viable solution when talking about applying solar (or other alt energy sources) to existing infrastructure unless you propose bulldozing entire cities to do so. Sonneschiff is a great example of what's possible when developing new residential areas, but it's not a valid comparison to powering a city. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:57:31 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That said, solar can be enough to power a house buy itself. I have a friend who lives off the grid in New Hampshire, with a back up generator that they use occasionally, but if you've ever been to New Hampshire in February you know if you can do it there, you can do it most anywhere. |
This is intriguing, but I fear that the devil is in the details. How much was the setup, how little power does he consume (ie. air conditioning or no?), how often does he need backup, what does he do at night? Our solar panel only provides about 25% of the office's consumption. It's an office, of course, with lots of computers, but the panel is probably much bigger than anything your friend has. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 02:58:19 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It will be interesting to see if we begin adding DC power into the residential mix in parallel with AC power, which we only use because it is easier to push great distances through power lines. |
My guess is "probably not," even though residential lighting may well be predominantly DC 20 years from now. We use AC for the following reasons:
- As you stated, because it is easier to transmit long distances
- It can easily be converted from one voltage to another with simple transformers
- It is required for many motor designs in use in residences
- It simplifies the design of appliances that require internal voltage conversion (which would otherwise require switching power supplies)
- It is safer in the event of accidental human contact
- Co-use of DC and AC within a residence would require dual wiring, which is uneconomical.
I can envision a scenario where individual low-voltage lighting circuits are strung, with AC feeding the controls, and DC actually powering the lights. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 03:23:23 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That said, solar can be enough to power a house buy itself. I have a friend who lives off the grid in New Hampshire, with a back up generator that they use occasionally, but if you've ever been to New Hampshire in February you know if you can do it there, you can do it most anywhere. |
The house right across the street from me runs on solar power (geothermal heating, too). The panels are all on the back roof, so you can't see them from the street at all. I went over there once when we had a power outage and they weren't even aware of it.
Connecticut isn't exactly a beach destination in February either...
Message edited by author 2011-03-17 15:26:37. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 03:23:50 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That said, solar can be enough to power a house buy itself. I have a friend who lives off the grid in New Hampshire, with a back up generator that they use occasionally, but if you've ever been to New Hampshire in February you know if you can do it there, you can do it most anywhere. |
This is intriguing, but I fear that the devil is in the details. How much was the setup, how little power does he consume (ie. air conditioning or no?), how often does he need backup, what does he do at night? Our solar panel only provides about 25% of the office's consumption. It's an office, of course, with lots of computers, but the panel is probably much bigger than anything your friend has. |
Also important is location and the amount of solar radiation available for conversion to electricity.
See Here NREL Solar Radiation Atlas
The link, also accounts for some different panel designs and installation characteristics.
I'd like to see ROI figures for these systems. I'd expect 25+ years before the investment pays for itself, especially with a less than optimal installation.
You CAN just slap a panel on a rooftop, but the angle is important to the overall efficiency. Add to that the inefficiencies in photovoltaics, packing factors etc and you lose power quickly. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 03:30:17 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by JH:
The effect known as 'quantum entanglement' means that any existing Nikon gear is already radioactive. I can take it off your hands and dispose of it in a secure facility. |
Damn quantum physics!
Oh well, if not me, who? If not now, when? I volunteer to help with your radioactive lens disposal efforts. There are a couple of long lenses for my D3 I'll dispose of for free. |
|
